Hi
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Not to pick on you, Graeme, but I just cannot believe
> that almost TEN YEARS LATER that this belief that "NFS
> is bad for mailboxes" persists.
OK, I'll add the caveat that in _my experience_, NFS is bad for mbox or
other file-based mailbox formats in situations where there are multiple
NFS clients (read: SMTP, IMAP and POP servers in a load-balanced farm)
doing simultaneous delivery and client reads via IMAP4 or POP3. To
expand a little, I've personally never deployed a single production
mailbox on an NFS backend where there weren't multiple frontends in use!
> We solved it a decade ago, folks... true, NFS locking
> has never been easy or pretty, but with care it could work.
> Perhaps with NFS v4's locking support people will finally
> start to reevaluate those old NFS prejudices?
Hrm... on a personal note this is about the only NFS "prejudice" I have
- and you've now blown it out the water ;-)
> Just one fairly nasty side-effect of maildir format on
> filers: the 4K block size.
I'll keep an eye on that. Thanks.
Graeme